DNS & DHCP on multiple Win2003 Servers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Degen Ende
  • Start date Start date
D

Degen Ende

Currently, I have a single Windows 2000 Advanced Server running DNS and
DHCP for my corporate domain.

I'm going to replace that with 2 Windows 2003 Enterprise Servers.

DNS1 will be my primary DNS/DHCP server.
DNS2 will be my secondary DNS/DHCP server.

In terms of DNS, this is fairly simple. Set DNS1 as the primary and
DNS2 as the secondary, configure for zone transfer, etc.

In terms of DHCP, I don't know the best way to handle any kind of
failover. As I understand it, Network Load Balancing (NLB) is out
because of how NLB works. Is it possible to use Cluster Services (MSCS)
instead for DHCP?

To make matters MORE interesting, a few months down the line we're
going to put in a third DNS server at an offsite location (I can't
explain why, my head hurts). Will this cause a problem? Would I have to
come up with an NLB/MSCS for my DNS which may conflict with my DHCP
failover scenario?

Any help would be outstanding. Thank you in advance.
 
Degen Ende said:
Currently, I have a single Windows 2000 Advanced Server running DNS and
DHCP for my corporate domain.

I'm going to replace that with 2 Windows 2003 Enterprise Servers.

DNS1 will be my primary DNS/DHCP server.
DNS2 will be my secondary DNS/DHCP server.

In terms of DNS, this is fairly simple. Set DNS1 as the primary and
DNS2 as the secondary, configure for zone transfer, etc.

In terms of DHCP, I don't know the best way to handle any kind of
failover. As I understand it, Network Load Balancing (NLB) is out
because of how NLB works. Is it possible to use Cluster Services (MSCS)
instead for DHCP?
Click to expand...

Whenever we hear someone is going to "replace" such servers,
many of us strongly urge you UPGRADE instead and keep it
simple.
To make matters MORE interesting, a few months down the line we're
going to put in a third DNS server at an offsite location (I can't
explain why, my head hurts). Will this cause a problem?
Click to expand...

There is no reason it should cause any problems.
Would I have to
come up with an NLB/MSCS for my DNS which may conflict with my DHCP
failover scenario?
Click to expand...

Normally DNS is NOT setup to use NLB or Clustering
since DNS servers mostly do that based on the way clients
use the DNS.

DHCP does NOT deal well with NLB either; it really needs
clustering.

Since clustering is on a PER APPLICATION basis (unlike
NLB which is per node) this works out even if DNS is on
the same box with the DHCP server.
Any help would be outstanding. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...


Is Active Directory involved in any of this?
 
Whenever we hear someone is going to "replace" such servers,
many of us strongly urge you UPGRADE instead and keep it
simple.
Click to expand...

The issue is we're replacing the hardware, so upgrading, while ideal,
isn't in the cards.
There is no reason it should cause any problems.
Click to expand...

My only thinking on three DNS servers involves a comment made by my
manager indicating potential issues with that setup. I couldn't imagine
what applications/services would have a problem with 3 DNS servers;
just slap in the three IPs and be done with it.
Normally DNS is NOT setup to use NLB or Clustering
since DNS servers mostly do that based on the way clients
use the DNS.
DHCP does NOT deal well with NLB either; it really needs
clustering.
Since clustering is on a PER APPLICATION basis (unlike
NLB which is per node) this works out even if DNS is on
the same box with the DHCP server.
Click to expand...

That was the direction I was heading in my head, I just needed someone
to verify that rationale. Further, is there any documentation that you
are aware of that could help me sell this idea to my boss? Well, he
needs to sell it to upper management.
Is Active Directory involved in any of this?
Click to expand...

We are not running Active Directory Integrated DNS servers. We may at
some point, but I cannot find the logic or the need for it. Can you
think of any advantage/disadvantage for doing that? I mean, updating
our DNS tables in a quicker fashion is nice and all, but I see that as
more network overhead than anything else.
 
Back
Top